Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2008-09-09 MinutesDate approved 10-14-08 ':~ ~'. Vote 7-0-0 ~ S\~ TOWN OF BREWSTER ~~~ ACT 16 A11 :3~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes September 9, 2008 Chairman Philip Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present were; Philip Jackson, Arthur Stewart, Robert McLellan, Brian Harrison, John Nixon, Patricia Eggers, Bruce MacGregor, and Leslie Erikson. Members missing; Paul Kearney. OLD BUSINESS • Motion made by John Nixon to ACCEPT the Minutes of August 12, 2008 as presented. Second made by Leslie Erikson. VOTE 8-0-0. NEW BUSINESS 08-11 Town of Brewster, Recreation Department, 2298 Main Street, Map 16 Lot 80-1. The applicant seeks a Variance under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-20 (D) to erect a sign at the driveway entrance to The Eddy School. CONTINUED Members hearing this case were Messrs. Nixon, McLellan, Jackson, MacGregor and Harrison. Mr. Roland Bassett Jr., Member of the Recreation Commission and Ms. Wendy Allegrone, Recreation Director presented this application. Ms. Allegrone noted originally they were asking for a second sign. They were asked to go to the School Committee to discuss using the same sign or post. The School Committee referred her to the Eddy School Principal. They worked out a compromise of moving the post out of the ditch, closer to the road. Then adding the Recreation Department sign to the bottom. This would be the same color and font as the original. What they need now is an exemption from the size. DISCUSSION • Harrison-how many square feet is the Eddy School sign? • Staley- allowed 12 s.f. • Harrison-each department allowed 12 s.f. or not to exceed 12 s.f. total? • Allegrone-we would raise it higher and move it forward. Our sign to hang below the existing sign. • Harrison-what size? • MacGregor-if existing is 12 s.f., addition should be same width, how high? • Allegrone-according to Bylaw 2 facilities there, each facility can have their own sign. We would like same width, same color and font on the same post. • Harrison- 6inches by 4 feet • MacGregor-other issue is the stone wall, would it be too low • Allegrone-post will be move by DPW-forward and raised • MacGregor-how much, could be an issue with school buses • Allegrone-forward a couple of feet will take it out of the ditch. • Bassett-can not be in the line of sight, DPW will check this. • Staley-Section 17 talks of "sight triangle"- it will not violate that. ZBA Minutes 09-09-08 • MacGregor-we will have to be specific on the height. • Harrison-how about maximum of 6 feet high • MacGregor-would you need a taller post? • Allegrone-Recreation sign will be above the stone wall • McLellan-can it go above the sign, on the cross bar? • Allegrone-we are trying to accommodate the school by moving it out of the ditch. • Harrison-it would look better below • Jackson-we have receive Department comments; Conservation- Administrative Review required- Done Planning Board- needs visibility. • Allegrone-visibility a concern but should blend in. • Jackson to Victor Staley-this can be interpreted 2 ways; each department get 12 s.f. or add up to 12 s.f.? • Staley-Bylaw done in 1991, there are 3 facilities there. This is one building with 2 uses, this can be deemed "separate facilities". Open to Public Input • No one spoke to this issue Motion by Brian Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by John Nixon. Vote: 5-0-0. FURTHER DISCUSSION • Harrison-only thing is the size and location. OK with Variance. Traffic flow is unique, hardship is th use on site. I recommend a 1.5 x 4 foot (6 s.f.) underneath • Nixon-increase total to 16 s.f. would be most realistic. Moving the sign would help both facilities. In favor of 16 or 18 s.f. • McLellan-fine with additional sign • MacGregor-OK with that, 1.5 x 4, but I think we should be specific to height limit. • Jackson-Section 179.4 states not in excess of 10' in height. MOTION made by Brian Harrison to GRANT Variance for additional sign below existing sign. The new sign to be 1.5 x 4, with height to be restricted by Section 179.4. Second by Robert McLellan. VOTE: 5-0-0 08-21 Robert A. Harrington and Eugenia P. Harrington, 40 Pine Bay Lane, Map 1 Lot 13-1. The applicant seeks an amendment to ZBA Variance 01-44 under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179 -35 B(1), Table 2, Note 2 to allow a cottage to remain as a bunkhouse or similar structure (with kitchen facilities removed) as accessory to a new single-family home. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, Erikson, Nixon, McLellan and Harrison. Attorney Roger O'Day represented the applicant. Mr. and Mrs. Harrington were present. Mr. O'Day noted that this case was continued to discuss concerns with Zoning Agent, Victor Staley. Lot coverage does not exceed applicable area. Can be considered "accessory use" similar to barn/garage. There are similar situations elsewhere in town. DISCUSSION • Nixon-according to previous decision (01-44); existing structure should be demolished. • O'Day-In previous decision-there was no concept of accessory use. The applicant could come back for a garage. • Erikson-to date 2 new homes have been built and one original is still there. This would set a precedent for the 3~d lot. New house and "bunkhouse" add to the density, this is a concern. ZBA Minutes 09-09-08 • Stewart-Nothing to change my mind. This could turn out to be a 2-3 bedroom "bunkhouse". I disagree with this. Septic permit for 4 bedrooms-2 in new buildings. Clearly designed as a 3 bedroom home. • Harrison=`bunkhouse" as a matter of right? • Staley-aware of 2 recently. • Harrison-seems to be permanent sleeping quarters; if garage or studio =shared function. Is it heated? • Harrington- No • McLellan-2 bedrooms in bunkhouse and 2 in main house for septic. It is a large building for just 2 bedrooms. Open to Public Input • Victor Staley-I am here because the direct language of the original Variance. • Mrs. Harrington-original cluster development requested the homes to be removed; there was no term "bunkhouse"then. • Todd French-surprised to find an "accessory structure" not legal. These are unique in Brewster. • Mrs. Harrington-this area is different, blends well in with the new house. No regulations for size of "bunkhouse". Motion by Robert McLellan to Close to Public Input. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE: 5-0-0. FURTHER DISCUSSION • McLellan- in favor of application based on 4 bedrooms • Stewart-doesn't meet Variance criteria; not a hardship. To change the Variance too intense a use. Planning Board doesn't feel we should change Variance. • Nixon-4 requirements; if denied the bunkhouse should be removed. It fits in with the area (although pretty large) and meets setbacks. • Harrison- bunkhouse has been a past practice-unheated and should remain that way- could allow an amendment to the previous Variance. • Erikson-not opposed to the "bunkhouse concept" but worried about setting a precedent for the 3~d lot. Overall size is overbearing. MOTION by John Nixon to GRANT an amendment to Variance 01-44 to keep the original building as a bunkhouse or accessory building provided it remains unheated and meets the Board of Health stipulation for number of bedrooms (removal of the kitchen) with Title V specifications. Second by Brian Harrison. McLellan YES Stewart NO Nixon YES Harrison YES Erikson NO Application DENIED 08-22 7eff Drake, 2623 Main Street, Map 15 Lot 106. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-28A non-conforming use from Pottery Shop (SP 01-01) to another non-conforming change of use to a design/consulting firm with shared space as an Art Gallery. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, Erikson, MacGregor, Harrison and Ms. Eggers. Mr. Jeffrey Drake was asked to give a brief description of his application. He has had a trial exhibit and design consulting firm for about 29 years. This space is a good fit that can also incorporate an art gallery as a shared space. This would be a change of use from one non-conforming ZBA Minutes 09-09-08 use to another. Most of my exhibits are graphic or computer generated with scale models and PowerPoint presentations as part of the business. The plan is for the main space to be Art Gallery (acrylic paintings as well as 3 dimensional work to be hung on the wall), office space and smaller room for work DISCUSSION • Stewart-any employees • Drake-just me • MacGregor-2 applications for same space, same building. I sat on this for past applications. Are we the pawns of a realtor? • Staley-interesting aspect; you are concerned with the use of the property. May approve both uses. The property owner must decide. Treat each on their individual merits. • Erikson- just the retail portion, not the residential. • Staley-only the central portion of the building. Other maintains current use. • Jackson-will the parking change? • Drake-consulting usually equals one car. Clients come infrequently. I usually go to them. The art gallery may attract cars. I have compared other Galleries in the area, usually 2-3 at a time. Capacity may be 10 cars, including apartment. • Eggers-still a problem with 2 applicants, can we grant use for both? • Staley-Yes, Special Permit goes with applicant. Final process is with the Building Department for codes, certificate of occupancy after appeals period and registry of deeds recording. • MacGregor-only one put to use. Open to Public Input • Robert Lowe-property owner- both applicants came through a Real Estate Agent-tried to keep in same use but not happening, just trying to get a tenant. Motion by Brian Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Patricia Eggers. VOTE: 5-0-0 FURTHER DISCUSSION • MacGregor- office use seems less intensive than what was there. Art Gallery about equal to what was there. Not much difference. • Stewart-agree, not a major change. Parking not an issue. • Harrison- low impact use. • Eggers-agree • Erikson-agree MOTION by Arthur Stewart to GRANT a Special Permit for change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. Second by Patricia Eggers. VOTE: 5-0-0. 08-23 Todd French, 3915 Main Street, Map 30 Lot 42-68. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-42.1 to build a one bedroom, 805 s.f. affordable accessory unit within a building to be built at 3915 Main Street. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Nixon, Erikson, MacGregor, Harrison and Ms. Eggers. Mr. Todd French presented a brief overview. This will be a basement level apartment with one bedroom, square footage and details stated above. DISCUSSION • Jackson-what about other floors • French-at some time possible home occupations • Jackson-Is business allowed? • French-this is for first level apartment except mechanical room. ZBA Minutes 09-09-08 • MacGregor-does it meet light and air percentages? • French-Full size windows and egress • Nixon-have you a permit to build structure? • French-not yet. • Eggers-I thought AADU units were on existing structures. • Todd-with this approval then I will make the building exist. • Erikson- apartment in basement level. • French- wood stove on ground level • MacGregor-.what is intent for first floor? • French-used to store wares until Gallery can be open. Second floor accessory living space to house. • Jackson-could be studio or office. Will this be a market rate apartment? • French-No • Staley-need a Variance, by right the house is there now ADDU is an affordable unit. Open to Public Input • No one spoke to the issue Motion by Patricia Eggers to Close to Public Input. Second by John Nixon. VOTE: 5-0-0. FURTHER DISCUSSION • Erikson-No issue with this. Affordable a good thing. • Eggers-no problem • Harrison-no problems. Record with Registrar of Deeds for future buyers. • Nixon-in favor • MacGregor-for affordable units. MOTION by Leslie Erikson to GRANT a Special Permit under Brewster Bylaw 179.42 for a one bedroom, 805 s.f. affordable accessory unit. Second by Patricia Eggers. VOTE: 5-0-0. 08-24 Kim Hudson, 2623 Main Street, Map 15 Lot 106. The applicant seeks a Special Permit under MGL 40A-9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-28A non-conforming use from Pottery Shop (SP 01-01) to another non-conforming change of use to a Yoga and Massage Studio. Members hearing this case were Messrs. Stewart, Erikson, MacGregor, Harrison and Ms. Eggers. Ms. Kim Hudson was asked to give a brief description of her application. The applicant looking for space for message and yoga studio. This is about 550 s.f. to fit a class of 10-12 people. The backroom would be used for message (one person at a time). Parking for 10-12 in back; 2 for apartment, 1 for owner, about 5 for yoga. Ms. Hudson has asked for permission from the Herb Shop and Church across the street to park 4-5 cars (letters coming). DISCUSSION • Stewart- would you limit the size of the class? • Hudson-prefer not • Stewart-there may be parking on the road or anywhere • Hudson-delineated spaces • MacGregor-if you (owner) park across the street that gives you one more in the lot • Harrison-what is the frequency of the classes? • Hudson-about 1.5 hours each and about 4 classes per day. Start at 5:30 AM and one in the evening. • Eggers-there is a crosswalk by the Flower Shop but not on that end. What about pedestrians crossing 6A. ZBA Minutes 09-09-08 • Hudson-the traffic is fairly slow moving in that district. • Jackson-is the business seasonal? • Hudson-winter is a little slower, mostly massage. • Erikson-how would you prevent parking on 6A • Hudson- good idea to paint lines and signs. Open to Public Input • No one spoke to this application Motion by Arthur Stewart to Close to Public Input. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE: 5-0-0 FURTHER DISCUSSION • MacGregor-tame use, especially with other parking in the area. • Stewart-certainly more intensive use, more detrimental if crossing 6A, doesn't fit as nicely. • Harrison-tend to be in favor if 1) signage to additional parking, 2) one year review for parking problems-hearing to confirm re: traffic and crossing 6A. • Eggers-agree with Art, different with parking and number of classes. Some concerns. • Erikson-judging on the merit of the application-parking a problem MOTION by Brian Harrison to GRANT the Special Permit for change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use with following conditions; signage for off site parking and one year review of Police, Zoning Agent and Traffic issues. Second by Patricia Eggers. VOTE: 4-0-1. MacGregor YES Stewart NO Harrison YES Eggers YES Erikson YES Victor Staley will remind the applicant in one year for review. OTHER BUSINESS 406 Fee Structures-review information from Dick Heaton. We will meet with Planning Board so fees are in line with Subdivision fees. Ask for a definition in Bylaws of BUNKHOUSE/ACCESSORY USE MOTION by Arthur Stewart to CONTINUE 08-25 until March, 2009. Second by John Nixon. VOTE: 7-1-0. MOTION made by Patricia Eggers to adjourn. Second by Brian Harrison. VOTE: 8-0-0. ZBA Minutes 09-09-08 6 Respectfully submitted,